As chaos
and violence become more frequent in America, the result of the humanist
philosophy undergirding political, government and social institutions,
people are coming more and more into contact with law enforcement which
people errantly believe, in the face of the quiet transformation of America
to systems governance, is there for their best interests and in the interests
of law and order.

What
follows is this researcher’s journey through what should have been a relatively
simple event. As shall be seen, what should have been and what was are
diametrically opposed.

On December
31, 2005, perpetrator or perpetrators unknown entered upon our property
through closed gates, removed our flag from our floodlit flagpole approximately
50 feet from our front door, took that flag to another location not far
distant and desecrated it by pouring house paint all over it. The flag
was left laying in a heap in the middle of a roadway surrounded by one
gallon paint buckets, most still containing paint.

Law
enforcement was called. In this case, law enforcement constitutes the
Stevens County Sheriff’s Office in Washington State. It is imperative
to point out, at this juncture, that the Stevens County Sheriff’s Office
is not representative of every law enforcement agency in the United States.
This is the same Sheriff’s Office whose officer, illegally in possession
of an Austrian made Steyr machine gun, shot up the neighborhood with that
gun during a party where he and his guests had consumed alcohol. This
is the same Sheriff’s Office that took no action when officers got drunk
and disorderly at a bar then drove their private vehicles home. Arriving
on scene, the opening salvo of the responding officer in charge was to
rudely and unprofessionally address me as “Stuter.” His conduct, as we
shall see, was but a precursor of events to come. Although clearly stated
in the Sheriff’s Office policy manual that such conduct will not be tolerated,
a complaint filed concerning his rude and unprofessional conduct was returned
“unfounded” which came as no surprise given the history of unprofessionalism
exercised by this particular Sheriff’s Office.

On scene
that night, the responding officer in charge allowed evidence in the desecrating
of the flag out of his custody, resulting in the evidence no longer being
credible to any investigation that might ensue; essentially the officer
destroyed evidence. That evidence consisted of five one-gallon paint buckets,
complete with lids, stolen from a property near where the flag had been
desecrated and left laying in the road. The responding officer in charge
allowed these paint buckets to be removed from his custody after declaring
loudly to everyone within hearing distance that he couldn’t find any fingerprints
on them. This proclamation coalesced his observing me approaching where
he was when I observed the paint buckets being removed from the scene.
The time he supposedly spent attempting to fingerprint the buckets from
the impromptu “lab” set up in the trunk of his patrol unit did not lend
to a credible or competent job. Given that the lids were pried from the
paint buckets, given that this was obviously a crime of opportunity, the
likelihood of the paint buckets being devoid of viable fingerprints was
minimal to nonexistent.

Allowing
the evidence out of his custody destroyed any evidentiary value the buckets
might have provided in a more competent laboratory setting with properly
trained, competent forensic personnel. The fact that he did this was not
stated in his police incident report, nor was the name of the individuals
to whom he released the paint buckets in his police incident report.

After
performing a fingerprinting job that was less than credible, less than
competent, after releasing evidence out of his custody, it was amazing
to listen to the responding officer in charge then expound vociferously
on who he suspected the perpetrators were — three individuals whom he
had no problem naming and defaming before all present. In one breath he
expounded on how he wished someone would “catch these guys;” in the next
he warned that anyone confronting them should be careful as they might
be armed. Not once did it seem to occur to the responding officer in charge
that catching the perpetrators was his job, his very statement showing
a lack of professionalism and training.

The
names of the three showed up in the police incident report he filed; but
interestingly, how he came to a credible conclusion that these three were
involved was decidedly absent. Since no one present at the scene saw the
three before, during, or after the incident; since no credible investigation
appeared to be under way, or would be under way, evidenced by the officer
in charge allowing evidence out of his custody; the “race to conclusion”
in the naming of these three as suspects raised red flags.

Beyond
his initial addressing me in rude and unprofessional manner, I never spoke
to the responding officer in charge or he to me. Nor did I address anyone
else in his presence or hearing range at any time. Imagine my surprise
then, when the responding officer in charge implied, in the police incident
report he wrote and filed, that he had overheard a conversation between
me and a neighbor, the content of which he relayed as fact in the report.
The conversation never occurred which means the responding officer in
charge deliberately falsified the police report. Under Washington code
such constitutes a gross misdemeanor.

The
responding officer in charge also stated, in the above referenced falsified
statement he made, that the flag had been “lowered” off our flagpole.
Since he never entered onto our property that night, did not inspect the
flagpole or halyard assembly for raising and lowering the flag, nor the
ground around the flagpole; since there was no further communication between
he and I following his initial rude and unprofessional behavior; since
I, at that time, did not know whether the flag had been lowered or cut
from the flagpole; how he came by the knowledge that the flag had been
lowered rather than cut from the pole raised more red flags. Coupled with
allowing evidence out of his custody that could point to the actual perpetrators
suggests that the actual perpetrators and those he named as suspects weren’t
the same; that he knew they weren’t the same; that he deliberately destroyed
evidence that would prove they weren’t the same.

In the
week following the incident all documents concerning the incident were
requested from the Stevens County Sheriff’s Office. Getting those documents
proved to be a daunting task with the Stevens County Sheriff’s Office
leaving no ruse fallow to try and keep information from us, even though
such clearly violates the Washington State Public Disclosure Act.

What
became obvious, however, was that documents that should have been with
the police incident report, if a credible investigation was really the
focus and goal, were not; information that should have been in the police
incident report, if a credible investigation was the focus and goal, was
not; the police incident report was falsified.

A request
for a copy of all verbal communications recorded by the Emergency Dispatch
Center regarding the incident resulted in an audio recording that was
taped then re-taped, suggesting that such was done to erase verbal communications
regarding the incident that pointed to misconduct and unprofessional conduct
by personnel of the Stevens County Sheriff’s Office. That tape was received
six weeks after the initial request for disclosure was made, again clearly
in violation of the Washington State Public Disclosure Act. Beyond this,
although the initial request for disclosure requested the tape be certified
as a true and exacting copy of all communications, what was received gave
the appearance of being certified but was not. Although the Sheriff of
Stevens County was made aware of this, no corrective action was forthcoming.

But
events didn’t end there. Things just kept getting better and better.

Irrespective
of all that should have been with the police incident report and was not,
the falsified information in the police report, the release of evidence
out of police custody, all brought to the attention of the elected Stevens
County Sheriff, this incident was referred to the detective branch of
the Stevens County Sheriff’s Office. That’s right — irrespective of
all that should have been with the police incident report and was not,
the falsified information in the police report, the release of evidence
out of police custody, all brought to the attention of the elected Stevens
County Sheriff, this incident was referred to the detective branch of
the Stevens County Sheriff’s Office. Why raised more red flags.

In early
February 2006 an individual identifying himself as a detective with the
Stevens County Sheriff’s Office called my home. He wasn’t too sure whom
he was calling, couldn’t get the name right, didn’t have his facts straight,
apparently couldn’t read the computer generated police incident report
filed, was generally uninformed and seemingly confused. Whether putting
on an act or really that incompetent, his routine instantaneously raised
more red flags.

Given
the red flags already raised, when the detective wanted to ask some questions,
I told him I would have to record our conversation. That he didn’t like
that idea and wouldn’t consent to being recorded raised more red flags.
After all, if his wanting to ask some questions was straight forward in
purpose and intent, why would he have a problem with the conversation
being recorded? I refused to speak with him unless I recorded the conversation
and he hung up.

Looking
at the 1) falsified police incident report, 2) destruction of evidence
by releasing it from custody, 3) the naming of suspects with no credible
investigation having been conducted and in light of destruction of evidence,
and 4) the missing documents from the police incident report, all coupled
with the 1) zeal to address the incident despite all this, and 2) the
refusal of the detective to have our conversation recorded, more than
suggests that the Stevens County Sheriff’s Office had ulterior motives
that were thwarted when I refused to speak with the detective unless I
recorded the conversation.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

People
want to believe that law enforcement is there for their protection; that
law enforcement officers are honest, upright citizens who take their job
to “protect and serve” seriously. Such, as more than adequately demonstrated
here, is not necessarily true. In the changing mission of law enforcement
under systems governance, what is and what should be are diametrically
opposed.

Mother and wife, Stuter has spent the past ten
years researching systems theory with a particular emphasis on education.
She home schooled two daughters, now grown and on their own. She has worked
with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems
governance and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers
and citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation. She has
traveled the United States and lived overseas.

That’s
right — irrespective of all that should have been with the police incident
report and was not, the falsified information in the police report, the
release of evidence out of police custody, all brought to the attention
of the elected Stevens County Sheriff...